Court highlights investigative lapses, questionable DNA evidence, and unsubstantiated last seen testimony; extends benefit of doubt to accused Gurpreet alias Gopi.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 7, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur) quashed the death sentence awarded to Gurpreet alias Gopi in a high-profile case involving the alleged kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor girl. The judgment came after a meticulous re-examination of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, which the Court found fraught with contradictions, improvements, and investigative lapses, ultimately concluding that the evidence failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Background:
The case arose from the disappearance of a 12.5-year-old girl on February 13, 2021, in the village of Rurki, Jalandhar district. The victim's father, Des Raj (PW-1), alleged that the accused, Gurpreet alias Gopi, had kidnapped, raped, and murdered his daughter, subsequently concealing her dead body in his house. The girl's body was found in a locked room in Gurpreet's house, stained with blood. The accused was convicted by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Jalandhar, and sentenced to death for murder and other offences under IPC Sections 364 (kidnapping), 376-A (rape), 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Grounds of Appeal and Reference:
The State of Punjab referred the case to the High Court for confirmation of the capital punishment, while the accused challenged both conviction and sentence. The High Court took cognizance of the entire trial record, prosecution and defense arguments, and the evidence on record.
Key Findings and Analysis by the Court:
1. Discrepancies in Reporting and Investigation:
- - Private witnesses (victim's family and neighbors) asserted that the police reached the village and recovered the body on February 13, 2021, in the evening. In contrast, official witnesses maintained that the police received information only in the early morning of February 14, 2021, and that the body was recovered thereafter.
- - There was an unexplained delay in FIR registration and police investigation, despite the body allegedly being found earlier.
- - The accused's house was initially locked, with keys held by another suspect, Vikas alias Sonu, who resided with the accused and fled the village after the incident, later declared a proclaimed offender. The police failed to investigate Vikas's involvement thoroughly.
2. Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies:
- - The victim's father's initial statement (Ex.P1/PA) did not mention locked doors or Vikas's role, but his later testimony (Ex.P2) introduced these facts as the "correct" version.
- - The last seen witness, JP (PW-2), uncle of the victim, claimed to have seen the accused with the victim but delayed reporting this crucial fact to family and police by over two days, undermining his credibility.
- - Village elders' testimonies conflicted on whether the accused was present during the body recovery or had fled the scene.
3. Questionable DNA and Medical Evidence:
- - Forensic DNA examination revealed a mixed DNA profile on the accused's pajama, containing the victim's blood and the accused's semen. However, no semen was detected on the victim's vaginal swabs, nails, or other clothing.
- - Medical evidence showed a ruptured hymen but no internal injuries or evidence of forcible sexual intercourse.
- - The prosecution failed to establish conclusively that the victim was raped by the accused.
- - The pajama sent for DNA testing differed in color and description from the item seized by police, raising doubts about the chain of custody and sanctity of evidence.
- - There was a delay of 17 days in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, further questioning the integrity of the evidence.
4. Staged Recovery and Investigative Failures:
- - The hammer and slippers, alleged murder weapons, were reportedly recovered on the accused's disclosure two days after the body was found, but site plans showed these items at the body's location during initial recovery. The police did not seize them immediately, suggesting fabrication.
- - No fingerprints were lifted from the hammer to link it to the accused.
- - The police did not investigate other suspects like Vikas adequately despite credible leads.
5. Legal Principles on Circumstantial Evidence:
- - The Court reiterated the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) that the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete, consistent only with the accused's guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude other hypotheses, and leave no reasonable doubt.
- - The presence of reasonable doubts and incomplete investigation meant the prosecution failed to discharge its burden.
6. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act:
- - The Court held that mere recovery of the body from the accused's house does not prove guilt; the prosecution must establish knowledge and exclusive control, which was absent here.
- - Failure to prove exclusive possession and failure to investigate other suspects meant the burden on the accused under Section 106 could not be invoked.
Conclusion and Order:
The High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, material improvements, and investigative shortcomings. The medical and forensic evidence did not conclusively establish rape or murder by the accused. The last seen evidence was unreliable, and recovery of the body from the accused's house did not prove his guilt due to lack of exclusive possession and failure to rule out other suspects.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the State's murder reference (MRC-7-2024) seeking confirmation of the death sentence and allowed the accused's appeal (CRA-D-1635-2025), setting aside the conviction and sentence. The accused was acquitted and released.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of fair trial and ensuring that convictions, especially death sentences, rest on unassailable evidence.
Bottom Line:
Benefit of doubt granted to the accused in a case involving circumstantial evidence due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, discrepancies in the investigation, and lack of conclusive scientific evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 364, 376-A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Sections 106 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 161, 173, 207, 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
State of Punjab v. Gurpreet alias Gopi, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2974639
